Re: [idn] KRNIC position paper

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

A very clear and reasonable position paper, pointing out a number of
places where the requirements document could be clearer. Thank you!

One comment:

At 07:08 25.03.00 +0900, GIM Gyeongseog-KIM Kyongsok wrote:
>4. whether to adopt short- or mid-range solution for IDN?
>   We can think of three different solutions:
>   a) short-range solution: 7-bit with some encoding;
>   b) mid-range solution: e.g., 8-bit/UTF-8
>   c) long-range solution: UCS without any transofrmation

Note that *all* representations of the UCS are, in some sense, transformations.
The choice here, given ISO 10646 as base character set, is between UTF-8, 
UTF-16 (2-3 flavours) and UTF-32 (some flavors) for bits transported on the 
wire.

So the question is whether there is reason to switch from "midrange" 
solution to some other transformation at a later date.

               Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no